ajgeek:The problem of long-term joblessness is best addressed by better training policies, as well as stronger demand, as well as tax reforms to increase work incentives, the organization said.

Absolutely, yes, and aw hell naw! I, for one, am tired of getting (not) trickled on because everything at the top is dammed up and reinforced with security guards posted every square foot.

Ever notice that even when there's no significant change to the underlying tax code, business regulations and employment laws, when unemployment takes hold the first thing you hear from the right is how we need to "reduce the burden" on businesses by changing said code, regulations and laws?

It's almost like those with a vested interest in changing those things are just disingenuously using the natural cycle of unemployment to drive the political demand for such reforms.

ajgeek:The problem of long-term joblessness is best addressed by better training policies, as well as stronger demand, as well as tax reforms to increase work incentives, the organization said.

Absolutely, yes, and aw hell naw! I, for one, am tired of getting (not) trickled on because everything at the top is dammed up and reinforced with security guards posted every square foot.

The tax reforms can refer to useful and smart things such as giving some kind of break to the employer's share of the worker's costs such as health care, employment insurance...I have no idea if you guys even have this stuff.

Anyway, the point being that it's not a stand alone tax break, it's simply a reduction on the hit if they hire someone full time.

Barfmaker:Anyway, the point being that it's not a stand alone tax break, it's simply a reduction on the hit if they hire someone full time.

Why is any investment in anything other than employment considered an "investment," but employees are "horrible unnecessary cost expenditures that the government needs to assist with?" Human Resources means more than cog in the machine. It's a pity the people who actually work in that system don't understand that.

The tax reforms can refer to useful and smart things such as giving some kind of break to the employer's share of the worker's costs such as health care, employment insurance...I have no idea if you guys even have this stuff.

Health insurance tied to employment is a terrible idea and policies that further entrench it should be discouraged.

I'd ask who would pay said wage, but I already know the answer. Good luck with that.

Short answer: The government.

Long answer: the government after taxing the shiat out of the wealthy and businesses. You want to live in a stable society where people aren't going to guillotine your head, you have to pay for it. Instead of being uber-rich you would have to settle for being just rich. *sad trombone*

The tax reforms can refer to useful and smart things such as giving some kind of break to the employer's share of the worker's costs such as health care, employment insurance...I have no idea if you guys even have this stuff.

Health insurance tied to employment is a terrible idea and policies that further entrench it should be discouraged.

I think you misunderstood. Tax breaks for employers who insure would mean more employers could offer it, rather than a lump sum given to execs so they can distribute it as bonuses to themselves.

GoldSpider:FarkedOver: You want to live in a stable society where people aren't going to guillotine your head, you have to pay for it.

A society where you have to pay to not be killed is not one I'd call "stable".

I love me some Engels:

"What the proletarian needs, he can obtain only from this bourgeoisie, which is protected in its monopoly by the power of the state. The proletarian is, therefore, in law and in fact, the slave of the bourgeoisie, which can decree his life or death. It offers him the means of living, but only for an "equivalent", for his work. It even lets him have the appearance of acting from a free choice, of making a contract with free, unconstrained consent, as a responsible agent who has attained his majority."

GoldSpider:The real world needs more than platitudes to improve our current system. Your ideal requires humanity to abandon individualism. Good luck with that.

Not necessarily. With the improvement of technology and production methods, people should be working less, yet that has not happened. People should have more free time for themselves and their own endeavors, yet they do not. Why is this? Because capitalism relies on excess labor. Simply put the more people work and produce, the more profits go up.

FarkedOver:Simply put the more people work and produce, the more profits go up.

To further compound on this issue, this doesn't necessarily relate to standards of living going up for the working class. In fact, in this day and age it is creating some sort of hyper-bourgeoisie. Maybe they see the writing on the wall and are attempting to get ever last bit of productivity out of the people for their own personal gain before their house of cards come crashing down on them, or maybe they are just so far removed from the working class that they just don't give a flying fark.

Prophet of Loss:GoldSpider: FarkedOver: Instead of working to benefit a few capitalists we should work to benefit all of humanity.

The real world needs more than platitudes to improve our current system. Your ideal requires humanity to abandon individualism. Good luck with that.

Our current system is failing. I, for one, am open alternatives.

Kings or Corporate Executive? WTF is the difference?

Don't get me wrong, I think the income distribution system is pretty farked too. I think we can improve it greatly, though, without scrapping the whole system. Pretending that everyone will work together for the common good, if only we coukd break the shackles of capitalism, is naieve at best.

GoldSpider:Don't get me wrong, I think the income distribution system is pretty farked too. I think we can improve it greatly, though, without scrapping the whole system. Pretending that everyone will work together for the common good, if only we coukd break the shackles of capitalism, is naieve at best.

What's naive is thinking that capitalism can last until the sun burns out. There will come a point (probably sooner, rather than later) when capitalism will be completely unsustainable. I have no qualms about highlighting what capitalism is good at (i.e. production), but its shortcomings (allocation) are EXTREMELY detrimental to the rest of the world at large.

FarkedOver:GoldSpider: Don't get me wrong, I think the income distribution system is pretty farked too. I think we can improve it greatly, though, without scrapping the whole system. Pretending that everyone will work together for the common good, if only we coukd break the shackles of capitalism, is naieve at best.

What's naive is thinking that capitalism can last until the sun burns out. There will come a point (probably sooner, rather than later) when capitalism will be completely unsustainable. I have no qualms about highlighting what capitalism is good at (i.e. production), but its shortcomings (allocation) are EXTREMELY detrimental to the rest of the world at large.

We cannot continue to grow our economies exponentially year over year. Its not physically possible. Modern Capitalism depends on this premise.

Prophet of Loss:We cannot continue to grow our economies exponentially year over year. Its not physically possible. Modern Capitalism depends on this premise.

Capitalism depends on a lot of farked up things when you get into it. It requires that a segment of the population be unemployed, it requires a segment of the world to work in abhorrent conditions in order to satisfy the wants of a select few. It requires competition among the working class for jobs, thereby driving down wages and creating a race to the bottom mentality. It requires subjugation on the part of the working class to ruling class that does not create anything except the illusion of power and control.

You're arguing against something (unfettered capitalism) that doesn't exist. I agree government should be a better counterweight against the power of private capital, and in that regard is headed in the wrong direction. I think the idea that capitalism is the only barrier between the people and universal altruism and cooperation is beyond silly.

GoldSpider:You're arguing against something (unfettered capitalism) that doesn't exist. I agree government should be a better counterweight against the power of private capital, and in that regard is headed in the wrong direction. I think the idea that capitalism is the only barrier between the people and universal altruism and cooperation is beyond silly.

Unfettered capitalism or regulated capitalism, someone, somewhere is being oppressed. We can agree that today we have more than we probably need. We agree that this is possible because of capitalism. The question that I raise is: "At whose expense has this been made possible?" The trap that many people fall into (i'm not saying you, I do give you much more credit than the next statement) is that think capitalism is a form of government of some sort. The fact is that capital can and has existed under MANY forms from democracies, monarchies, dictatorships, fascist governments, etc. My point is there is no reason to defend an economic model as the ultimate human achievement. My belief is that humanity can do better and humanity does deserve better than what capitalism has to offer.

GoldSpider:You're arguing against something (unfettered capitalism) that doesn't exist. I agree government should be a better counterweight against the power of private capital, and in that regard is headed in the wrong direction. I think the idea that capitalism is the only barrier between the people and universal altruism and cooperation is beyond silly.

FarkedOver:My belief is that humanity can do better and humanity does deserve better than what capitalism has to offer.

Hard to argue with the results. In historical terms, capitialism has progressed humanity much more than any other system. You may belive that socalism/communism may be a better path, but most will disagree.

HeadLever:Hard to argue with the results. In historical terms, capitialism has progressed humanity much more than any other system. You may belive that socalism/communism may be a better path, but most will disagree.

A planned economy put the first satellite in space, the first man in space, the first woman in space.

I'd be careful arguing capitalism put a man on the moon though, I didn't see any private enterprise logo on any of the apollo missions....

At some point we are going to have to admit, as a society, that having 1% of the people move 50% of the wealth between each other on a digital exchange is not a job and can't be the basis for a vibrant economy.

skozlaw:At some point we are going to have to admit, as a society, that having 1% of the people move 50% of the wealth between each other on a digital exchange is not a job and can't be the basis for a vibrant economy.

FarkedOver:GoldSpider: You're arguing against something (unfettered capitalism) that doesn't exist. I agree government should be a better counterweight against the power of private capital, and in that regard is headed in the wrong direction. I think the idea that capitalism is the only barrier between the people and universal altruism and cooperation is beyond silly.

Saiga410:Publicly funded and privately administered with correctly bounded contracts is the best option for massive public works.

No it is not. Please see the Big Dig in Boston. It's still a shiat shot because the contractors skimped on the materials they used. This is the issue with capitalism, they do ANYTHING for profit even at the expense of public safety.

"The capitalist will sell us the rope with which we will use to hang him."

FarkedOver:Saiga410: Publicly funded and privately administered with correctly bounded contracts is the best option for massive public works.

No it is not. Please see the Big Dig in Boston. It's still a shiat shot because the contractors skimped on the materials they used. This is the issue with capitalism, they do ANYTHING for profit even at the expense of public safety.

"The capitalist will sell us the rope with which we will use to hang him."

Further, look at the old WPA projects. They built high schools which are still standing and STILL being used!

skozlaw:At some point we are going to have to admit, as a society, that having 1% of the people move 50% of the wealth between each other on a digital exchange is not a job and can't be the basis for a vibrant economy.